Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Republicans Insist Tax Cuts Will Benefit Workers, But CEOs Have Other Plans
Huffpost ^ | 11/30/17 | Igor Bobic and Arthur Delaney

Posted on 11/30/2017 1:02:35 PM PST by DoodleDawg

Republicans insist their tax cut bill will benefit workers, though the legislation has few provisions that directly benefit people with modest incomes in the long run.

Instead, the core of the bill is a huge cut to corporate taxes, bringing the top rate down from 35 to 20 percent. Republicans say workers will be better off if corporate executives and shareholders have more money.

“If they’re making money, they invest that money, they create more opportunities, more jobs, more research,” Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) told HuffPost.

A number of top CEOs, however, have signaled they plan to reward their investors instead.

Instead of hiring more workers or increasing wages, executives from major companies including Cisco Systems, Pfizer, Coca-Cola, Amgen and Honeywell have said they plan to use the windfall from the corporate tax cut to first increase stock dividends or to buy back shares.

“We’ll be able to get much more aggressive on the share buyback” after the tax cut is passed into law, Cisco CFO Kelly Kramer said in an earnings call earlier this month. Stock buybacks increase the value of shares held by investors ― a group that typically includes corporate executives, who are among the corporate tax cut’s biggest proponents.

(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: senatetaxbillpassed; senatetaxplanpassed; taxcuts; trumptaxcuts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 last
To: CurlyDave
The long term effect of lowering the corporate rate will be both higher stock prices and more jobs.

NOT unless there is a mechanism to keep those employers from investing that windfall in Mexico and China...

81 posted on 11/30/2017 8:41:22 PM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
You have just contradicted yourself. Cutting taxes will increase corporate profits, that much is true. But why should corporations then dilute those profits by expanding their business unless there is a clear and unmistakable increase in the demand for their services? Tax cuts alone aren't going to provide it. And "if you expand then they will come" is not a good business strategy.

And the only way to increase demand for their products is to cut the throat of the supply chain from China and Mexico...And you can bet that the same congresscreeps who passed this tax thing will fight that measure with every thing they've got...

Let us not forget some of that tax reduction windfall will find its way back to our Washington politicians...

82 posted on 11/30/2017 8:48:25 PM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: cherry

Well if you believe that then I suggest you get on the phone right away with an investment broker and buy up some stock so you can be one of those that are running instead of missing out.

Our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world by far and needs to be significantly lowered and it must be permanent or no long term investments can or will be made. That’s simple economics.


83 posted on 11/30/2017 9:42:11 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

Even assuming that’s true, who installs the new office décor? Ships the office décor? Works at the resorts, etc? (then where do those people spend the money in their pocket from the work?) Where do they spend the “huge bonuses”? On stuff like new cars? Who sells the cars at the lot? Who shipped the cars to the lot, the supplies to make those cars, etc?

Do you have any basic understanding of how an economy functions to make remarks like that as though they make sense? Your comments are right out of the leftwing playbook.


84 posted on 11/30/2017 9:45:37 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
They will instead use the tax windfall to boost share prices and reward investors.

Then get on the phone and start buying up that stock right now. What are you waiting for?

85 posted on 11/30/2017 9:46:33 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
Then get on the phone and start buying up that stock right now. What are you waiting for?

I started buying after the Trump inauguration and have been enjoying the returns I've gotten over the past year. If this bill passes I expect next year to be even better.

86 posted on 12/01/2017 3:30:11 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: lepton
If they think they can make money from it, they will invest monies both in product and in employees.

If it’s not profitable enough to be worth the risk and hassle, they won’t.

Exactly. Just because their taxes are cut that won't change.

87 posted on 12/01/2017 3:35:37 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: lepton
No. We’re not. We’re pulling out of a stagnant phase with a huge amount of slack in the labor pool. People are merely being pulled out of the idle class at a rate similar to job growth.

That's not what the President has been saying. Lowest unemployment in decades.

88 posted on 12/01/2017 3:36:32 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Statistical full employment

Lowest unemployment in decades.


Those are two different statements, especially with the huge drop in Participation Rate.

The first statement is incorrect, the second is generally misleading in the current environment. It is comparable to a year ago when makeup of the non-employed was generally similar, but not to ten years ago.


89 posted on 12/01/2017 5:14:43 AM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: lepton
The first statement is incorrect, the second is generally misleading in the current environment.

Economists consider an unemployment rate of 4% or less as full employment.

It is comparable to a year ago when makeup of the non-employed was generally similar, but not to ten years ago.

Ten years ago you didn't have as many retired people.

90 posted on 12/01/2017 5:19:49 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

...I don’t believe they have an obligation to do so. I’ve nothing against “the rich” - most have earned it by producing things others want and working hard. I’m not rich but I’m willing to work at a supply/demand rate, finding my way to make myself as valuable as possible. If that intersects, at some point, with making myself rich then great, if I just have to keep working then fine too.

This notion that the government has some responsibility to force money in certain directions is a form of tyranny. It creates its own problems. Policies that “take just because it’s fair” only lowers all boats, creating equal misery. Some just don’t like the ability for some to outperform others because they’re willing to learn, work, innovate, and be rewarded for it. Stopping this process isn’t good for anyone. How can a poor person get themselves out of poverty if there’s nobody that has more than they do? Having the government just taking from those that “have” to those that don’t is just government sanctioned theft. It is still immoral.

I believe a healthy, and free market, economy leads to reasonable wages. The only responsibility “the rich” has is to pay a wage based on market demands, they’ll have no choice. They have no responsibility outside that.


91 posted on 12/01/2017 7:10:45 AM PST by fuzzylogic (welfare state = sharing consequences of poor moral choices among everybody)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

There are several positives .... which specific selling point do you want the GOP to use to conform to your world view?


92 posted on 12/01/2017 7:26:19 AM PST by taxcontrol (Stupid should hurt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: fuzzylogic

No argument there. But Congress keeps pitching this tax bill and a job creator that will lead to higher wages while the President is promising $4000 income increases for an average family. The tax bill will likely lead to neither of those. So why the misinformation?


93 posted on 12/01/2017 7:34:39 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
There are several positives .... which specific selling point do you want the GOP to use to conform to your world view?

The ones that are true. How about those?

94 posted on 12/01/2017 7:44:56 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: kevao
I think the farce that corporations are just "individuals" like anyone else needs to end and individual earners should not be taxed at all or all taxed at exactly the same rate.

It's not a matter of whether the Fedz take it or not, this started with "revenue neutral", or didn't you notice that? It's a matter of letting individuals keep what they earn rather either Federal or Corporate extortionists taking a share then praising the fact that some small percentage of it trickles back down to them after the various special interests and preferred parties take a slice.

95 posted on 12/01/2017 7:02:42 PM PST by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
Did they start with this having to be "revenue neutral" or not? If so, then tax cuts to corporations will end up being paid on a one for one or better ratio out of the pockets of individuals. Otherwise, it won't be "revenue neutral".

Do you have any basic understanding of the term, "revenue neutral"?

96 posted on 12/01/2017 7:05:39 PM PST by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
It's not a matter of whether the Fedz take it or not,

Actually, it is.

Are you a communist? I'm sure you'll say, No!

And why not? I'm sure you'll say, Communism is government ownership of the economy's means of production.

I set this up to throw this out, something I thought about the other day:

A 35% corporate tax rate means that Fedzilla has a 35% ownership of every corporations net profit. We are all viscerally anti-communist, opposing 100% government ownership of the means of production, but many here are OK with a 35% government ownership of the means of production.

So are we FReepers 1/3 communist?

97 posted on 12/01/2017 10:44:59 PM PST by kevao (Biblical Jesus: Give your money to the poor. Socialist Jesus: Give your neighbor's money to the poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson